Anil Sooklal, South Africa’s BRICS Sherpa, told a leading Chinese media Guancha.cn that the expanded BRICS is stronger because its share of global GDP in terms of PPP is much bigger than the G7 (about 35.4% vs 29.6%). “Our share of global manufacturing and global trade is over 25%. That’s highly significant for a small group of countries.”
“Population wise, we account for almost 45% of the global population that’s close to half of the global community.”
Well, it seems that the West has reasons to worry.
The rise of the BRICS nations is often seen as a potential threat to the Western-dominated global order. However, this view is both right and wrong.
BRICS is not a cohesive military or economic bloc, and it is far away from a “Global South” equivalent of NATO or the G7. Instead, without positioning itself as a beacon for the world, BRICS operates as a loose coalition with minor influence on global economic policy compared to the G7 .
Militarily, the cooperation among BRICS is minimal. Put aside Russia’s formidable nuclear arsenal, although Russia, China, and India possess aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, they remain primarily regional powers with limited blue-water capabilities compared to the United States.
Internal divisions of BRICS are also notable. While India and China have recently reduced border tensions, genuine mutual trust remains elusive.
Russia is particularly eager for BRICS to help it circumvent Western sanctions, including through a shared payment system. Yet China and the other BRICS members do not share this level of urgency. And only under the geopolitical pressures of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia raised its willingness to align more closely with China in Central Asia and the Far East.
Countries like Brazil, South Africa, and other new BRICS members are comparatively weaker in terms of national power, particularly in heavy industry, and show no inclination to confront the West.
The West perceives BRICS as a “revisionist force” that seeks to reshape the global order. However, the advocacy for a multipolar world is not an attempt to dismantle the existing system but rather to reform it, aiming for a larger voice in international affairs.
Still, there is some validity to Western concerns.
Today’s international system retains remnants of colonialism, and the West continues to benefit from these “colonial dividends.” Historically, civilizations have risen and fallen in cycles at the regional level, yet Western civilization’s recent ascent coincided with technological advances that enabled global colonization and lasting benefits—“colonial dividends”—that, at one time, appeared to be endless.
Most BRICS countries suffered under colonialism, with Russia as the only exception. Although Russia was a colonial power itself, it ultimately found common ground with developing nations due to longstanding antagonism on racial, cultural, and ideological fronts from the West.
The rise of developing nations has shown that Western people are not inherently superior or more industrious; indeed, all of humanity has the capacity to achieve industrial success.
From a global perspective, the rise of developing nations isn’t a zero-sum game. But for the West, it does mean a loss of relative advantage, eroding the economic structure that has sustained high incomes and potentially leading to an absolute decline in living standards.
For the West, the real issue is that the development of BRICS is a natural outcome—there is little they can do to halt developing nations’ technological progress, aside from causing minor disruptions.
Western criticism of BRICS nations’ political systems, economic models, and human rights practices has achieved little and has only fostered resentment among BRICS elites and citizens. Recognizing BRICS’ unique contributions to global economic recovery and poverty alleviation could offer a more constructive approach.
Because BRICS’ development largely follows a natural course, the West may actually benefit by adopting a more hands-off approach. Distrust and confrontation risk losing cooperative opportunities and breeding greater discontent.
The West should feel fortunate that, despite the scars of colonialism, most patriotic political elites of the developing countries remain rational, seeking to reform the international system rather than demand retribution.
Ultimately, the most wise approach of the West could be accepting its relative decline, as no empire lasts forever. Resisting these historical shifts, they would only find that “the more they do, the more mistakes they make.”
